My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
3/21/1996
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
1990's
>
1996
>
3/21/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/23/2015 12:05:49 PM
Creation date
6/16/2015 3:23:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
Special Joint Meeting
Document Type
Minutes
Meeting Date
03/21/1996
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
_I <br />BOOK 97 PAU 61"J '67' <br />Margaret Ingram commented that at that point the elected Board <br />of Trustees would enter into renegotiation. If the public doesn't <br />like what is going on, and the Trustees understand that, then the <br />7 Trustees are the ones who will make the decision whether the <br />lease would be renewed. <br />Attorney Polackwich agreed that if we ever reached that point, <br />the Trustees would have a duty to renegotiate in good faith. <br />Assistant County Attorney Terry O'Brien felt it raises an <br />issue that it certainly could be litigated if, for instance, there <br />was 5 years left on the 25 -year contract and an improvement was <br />constructed with a 30 -year life on a 30-40 year mortgage. He .felt <br />you would be duty bound to extend that for a period of time to <br />cover that major alteration or addition. <br />Attorney Polackwich explained that they have faced that <br />question each time they have done bonds because they have bonds <br />that extend out beyond the year 2010 when the lease expires. The <br />way they have resolved that internally with the bond interest is to <br />use the year 2010. <br />Mr. Montuoro emphasized that no addition or improvement would <br />be put up without the approval of the Hospital District Board of <br />Trustees because they back all the bonds that are issued to pay <br />these off. No addition is financed through a mortgage. An <br />improvement is paid through an industrial revenue bond issued by <br />the hospital. <br />Attorney O'Brien suggested the language be changed to read "if <br />the lessee determines to finance the addition with the approval of <br />the Board of Trustees ..." <br />Commissioner Macht felt that goes to the heart of why he felt <br />we should revisit the contract. It appears that the Board of <br />Trustees is moving forward in the renegotiations of the contract. <br />He asked if that is an accurate statement, and Mr. Montuoro <br />answered that it is. He believed they are making progress, but <br />pointed out that these negotiations will be going on for some <br />period of time because it is a complex issue. A liaison committee, <br />composed of 3 Trustees and 3 Board of Directors, meets Monday <br />nights to discuss situations, problems and issues that are <br />pertinent to both boards. <br />Commissioner Eggert asked for a review of the differences <br />between the Indian River Hospital District Board of Trustees and <br />the Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc. Board of Directors. <br />Mr. Montuoro explained that the Hospital Taxing District Board <br />of Trustees consists of 7 elected (unpaid) officials who serve 4 - <br />year terms. The terms are staggered with 4 trustees going out one <br />year and 3 the next year. The Trustees take care of the indigent <br />4 <br />MARCH 21, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.